My impression is that “awesome lists” are informal, unofficial, user-created (sort of “fan powered”) lists of great things implemented with a particular product or technology. It would be completely weird and against the spirit of such a list for it to be under the control of a standards organization or require the signing of any sort of agreement to participate.
-James
Alexander,
I am not familiar with what you call an
"awesome list". However, I am very familiar with the idea of
platforms and ecosystems. For other projects within the Eclipse
Foundation we manage marketplaces or hosted repositories where
value is made available by other parties. See [1] and [2] for
examples. Are these examples of what you're talking about?
On 2021-04-09 11:18 a.m., Alexander
Schwartz wrote:
Hi Jesse and Mike, thank you for these comments and concerns, they are very
helpful.
My email describes the way a "normal awesome list" would be
managed - that would be CC0 + no contributor agreement bot, and
I see that this is very different from a regular Eclipse
project. I am happy to embrace the Eclipse processes to serve
the AsciiDoc WG's goals. I will not rush to action here, and I'll put it on the next
next SG meeting's agenda.
At the last SG meeting, there were positive nods about the
general idea of Awesome lists to compile a list of tools.
As usual with this, it's always the question where to host it
(asciidoc GitHub organisation or not), what license to apply,
and what content to accept. As I see the user's documentation in
the AsciiDoc language project is licenses CC-BY, I added it here
as well.
Reading your comments, this Awesome list might need to work
differently from other Awesome lists to serve the AsciiDoc WG's
goals and purpose.
Let's find out how!
Best regards,
Alexander
On 09.04.2021 16:27, Jesse McConnell
wrote:
Since you are a Working Group through the Eclipse
Foundation, I think the default position is that anything
you are doing should be viewed through that, leveraging the
Eclipse Development Process where appropriate. I don't
claim to be authoritative on this specific topic in terms of
this user supplied documentation, but before moving forward
I highly suggest you expand on it, clearly stating what you
are looking to achieve and pass it through emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
as a sanity check.
I don't know what specific agreement you made with
Eclipse regarding asciidoc repositories, nor what your
intended future use of them will be. However I find it
mildly concerning, enough so to send this response, that you
are talking about leveraging non-EPL licenses and short
circuiting the ECA process. I think in the short term the
intention should be that as much as possible your community
should be encouraged to sign ECA's and participate in the
eclipse ecosystem in a proper fashion, in this situation
through PRs that committers then approve and merge. If you
have specific issues with that process, bring them up with
the Architecture Council which I am a member of and would be
happy to discuss/champion.
In summary, this may all be fine, I only know enough
details to say something seems hinky. My caveat is that most
of my experience with Eclipse has been project related and
not Working Group related in these sorts of details?
cheers,
Jesse
Hi, at the previous steering group meeting I proposed an
AsciiDoc awesome list to provide a community edited list
of tools in the AsciiDoc ecosystem - see https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome
for examples. As the AsciiDoc WG it allows us to list and promote
tools that support AsciiDoc. These lists are usually
maintained on GitHub repos in the README. This post is about where to host a Git repo for this,
and which license to choose.
While the AsciiDoc WG has a strong interest in this, I
propose to host it not as an Eclipse project, but as as a
simple GitHub repo unter https://github.com/asciidocFuture versions of this list might be rendered as nice
HTML on the asciidoc.org. Please comment if you think this is possible/advisable. Something to be discussed in the future: We (as the
AsciiDoc WG) might end up with a list of things that
have the name AsciiDoc in their name, but not
necessarily be AsciiDoc TCK compliant (once there is a
language specification).
These lists have usually a very liberal license. A
quick survey revealed mostly licenses like "Creative
Commons Zero v1.0 Universal" aka "CC0", others used MIT
License. Some thoughts on this: CC-licenses fit better here, as
this is about documentation. As the AsciiDoc Lang
documentation will be licensed CC-BY-4.0, this would
also be an option. Following it to the letter, it would
require everyone copying a link and one-line-of-text
from the Awesomelist to add a link to the AsciiDoc
Awesome list. Using CC-BY-4.0 is tempting to promote the
list, but probably not the spirit of Awesome lists.
I therefore propose:
- to adopt a license of CC0
- no requirement of signing a eclipse contributor's
agreement
Again, please comment if you think this is
possible/advisable. Best regards,
Alexander
_______________________________________________ asciidoc-wg mailing list asciidoc-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/asciidoc-wg
|